damhooligan wrote:You say we all except something negative wil happen, so.. what's more negative then getting hit by a car... ??Do we really accept this ??

You must not be a real human talking person, dam, because something negative will happen if you ride long enough. Flat tyre, near miss with a ped, attention from a dog, sunburnt legs... that doesn't mean you should expect to be hit by a car... maturity shows that life has ups and downs, and nothing is exempt from that. I was literally an inch from rear ending a Rodeo this morning, haven't ever felt my bike go sideways Mr Squiggle style until today. These things happen.

If I honestly thought a car hit was inevitable, I don't think I would ride. It hurts.

Comedian wrote:Can someone explain why this law should not be enacted?

I've used this argument before but apparently its not practical. I agree its not practical, but that is the point helmets aren't always practical either.

Furthermore if we are SERIOUS about every life matters then life jackets at the beach and swimming pools would certainly save far more lives. Sure beaches and swimming pools wont be as much fun, but its only recreation. On the other hand riding often has far more practical uses IF we let it flourish.

It does make for an interesting thought. I didn't realise that water was that dangerous I would have thought that some further action would have been taken, since people need to commute a LOT more than swim - this seems like a major policy confusion...

damhooligan wrote:You say we all except something negative wil happen, so.. what's more negative then getting hit by a car... ??Do we really accept this ??

You must not be a real human talking person, dam, because something negative will happen if you ride long enough. Flat tyre, near miss with a ped, attention from a dog, sunburnt legs... that doesn't mean you should expect to be hit by a car... maturity shows that life has ups and downs, and nothing is exempt from that. I was literally an inch from rear ending a Rodeo this morning, haven't ever felt my bike go sideways Mr Squiggle style until today. These things happen.

If I honestly thought a car hit was inevitable, I don't think I would ride. It hurts.

Define 'something' ...To many variables...

let's say 'something' is a crash...Just because you ride, it doesn't mean you crash...Its not a garantee, it's a possibility.No one is immune to it, but no one is destined either...There are plenty of people that ride, and not crash.

But the mhl makes us think this possibility is a garantee....Lets face it, we are not forced to wear a helmet because something can happen.We are foced to wear it cause something wil happen (that the logic of this law... )

The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!

damhooligan wrote:You say we all except something negative wil happen, so.. what's more negative then getting hit by a car... ??Do we really accept this ??

You must not be a real human talking person, dam, because something negative will happen if you ride long enough. Flat tyre, near miss with a ped, attention from a dog, sunburnt legs... that doesn't mean you should expect to be hit by a car... maturity shows that life has ups and downs, and nothing is exempt from that. I was literally an inch from rear ending a Rodeo this morning, haven't ever felt my bike go sideways Mr Squiggle style until today. These things happen.

If I honestly thought a car hit was inevitable, I don't think I would ride. It hurts.

Define 'something' ...To many variables...

let's say 'something' is a crash...Just because you ride, it doesn't mean you crash...Its not a garantee, it's a possibility.No one is immune to it, but no one is destined either...There are plenty of people that ride, and not crash.

But the mhl makes us think this possibility is a garantee....Lets face it, we are not forced to wear a helmet because something can happen.We are foced to wear it cause something wil happen (that the logic of this law... )

I'll let you find a dictionary for a common interpretation of the term "something" You chose a crash, you've chosen to restrict my comment to an unlikely event that is not inevitable. Might even be a strawman in the corn field...

I agree with your final paragraph in full; there is additional psychology at play (and this is why I am antiMHL, because the law does more than put a helmet on a law abiding rider).

Ross wrote:I didn't misreport anything. I just cut and pasted a link and the corresponding headline as I thought it was relevant as the topic was about helmets, though it was obviously about skiing not cycling.

Misreporting is simple - representing another person's views incorrectly to support an agenda. You've supported helmet laws, and the coroner said that helmets would be a good idea for people in high risk skiing situations. Well DUH. If you are at a high risk of getting your head hit and causing damage that will be hard to treat quickly and properly, then maybe some OHS would be good. A road is a dramatically different situation to a remote alpine area.If you were doing downhill MTB riding in a similar situation to a remote skiier/snowboarder, I'm sure that most people would agree with the idea of having a helmet on... but riding along a road isn't a low traction, low control situation like a rough downhill track.

I suggest that cycling isn't the hobby for you (and commuting on the road either) if you are so frightened of other road users... because hospital visits and broken bones are just as painful without hitting your head, and I'm not prepared to break bones just trying to ride to work.

It's disingenuous to imply that an article like that has any relevence to the MHL discussion when it has nothing to do with bikes, or how a helmet law would have changed things.

You are putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head, Xplora. As part of the "discussion" about MHL I simply posted what I thought was a relevant link. Yes I believe in MHL but, unlike you (and others in this thread) I am not trying to convert people to my way of thinking and asserting that my views are right and anybody that opposes it must be wrong. I am simply adding links to relevant news articles as additional info/opinion for forum members to discuss.

You most probably are more likely to have a crash on a MTB while riding down some rough DH single track than riding a road bike on a road (I don't ride a MTB so can't really give any personal comparisons) but there are still a number of factors on the road that can cause/contribute to crashes. Some of these are debris on the road (sticks, rocks, stuff fallen off vehicles etc), potholes and of course contact with motor vehicles. You don't have to be going at high speed for any of these factors to cause/contribute to a crash.

I had a very low speed crash (walking pace) on my road bike a couple of months ago where I went flying over the handlebars and head first onto the road. The helmet I was wearing probably didn't save my life but (IMO) it sure helped me avoid serious injury. Another time I misjudged the height of a tree branch and headbutted it as I tried to duck under. Again, I probably wouldn't of been killed but (IMO) the helmet saved me from more serious injury. I haven't had any crashes involving motor vehicles (actually did have one about 30 years ago (pre-MHL!), pretty minor, a car failed to give way as I recall), I am more concerned about the lack of skills and bad cycling behaviour of commuter cyclists. So much that I will find another route to commute so as to avoid these riders.

If you don't want to wear a helmet ,well that's your decision, you and your family are the ones that will have to live with the consequences if things go wrong.

I liken MHL to insurance. Probably (hopefully) never going to need it but it's there if something bad happens.

Ross wrote: Another time I misjudged the height of a tree branch and headbutted it as I tried to duck under.

Actually you probably got the height right and ducked under perfectly. That body image stuff is hard wired into people and nearly everyone is really good at it. But you instinctively did not allow for the height of the helmet. Its very likely you had that accident BECAUSE you were wearing a helmet. I biff my helmet getting into the car all the time and never hit my head otherwise. (Grabbing stuff at track)

Whats psychologically interesting is that that did not occur to you as a cause. Because helmets are all positive I guess.

Ross wrote:You are putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head, Xplora. As part of the "discussion" about MHL I simply posted what I thought was a relevant link.

If you do not want words and thoughts put forward for you, then do more than hyperlink with a very loaded comment. Yes, I'm allowed to see it for what it is, and you did nothing to imply that I was wrong - you commented badly, I caught you out. There is always more than just a sentence... there is depth to your thinking that you can't hide. Your comment proved it. It wasn't a relevent link. Start posting about how people did not hit their head doing things, and then I'll believe you aren't "just posting a link"

Your comment about insurance is hilarious - you realise that insurance is NEVER compulsory? OHS "insurance" and CTP "insurance" are not insurances, they are privately administered injury compensation funds. You can choose to self insure anything else, except these things. You are legally obliged to cover yourself for these areas. So calling it insurance is a bit funny

Ross wrote:You are putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head, Xplora. As part of the "discussion" about MHL I simply posted what I thought was a relevant link.

If you do not want words and thoughts put forward for you, then do more than hyperlink with a very loaded comment. Yes, I'm allowed to see it for what it is, and you did nothing to imply that I was wrong - you commented badly, I caught you out. There is always more than just a sentence... there is depth to your thinking that you can't hide. Your comment proved it. It wasn't a relevent link. Start posting about how people did not hit their head doing things, and then I'll believe you aren't "just posting a link"

Did you bother to click on the link? If you did (which going from your coments I don't think you did), you will see the "comment" you attributed to me is the headline of the article. As I have already stated I just posted the link and the headline to the article, as a discussion point. Nowhere did I say "you must wear helmets" or anything else of a similar nature. As I said in my previous post I do believe in MHL, but that is just my belief and I don't try and force my view onto other people. You ask for my opinion on the subject and I will give it to you. I will even discuss the matter and listen to other people's opinions on the subject, even if they have an opposing view.

My second link was more with your argument then against, so I think that a pretty balanced view.

Xplora wrote:Your comment about insurance is hilarious - you realise that insurance is NEVER compulsory? OHS "insurance" and CTP "insurance" are not insurances, they are privately administered injury compensation funds. You can choose to self insure anything else, except these things. You are legally obliged to cover yourself for these areas. So calling it insurance is a bit funny

Glad you think my comparison to insurance was hilarious. it wasn't meant to be but after reading your comment and taking it into consideration I can now see how maybe it isn't a fair comparison. To wearing helmets I think yes, but to MHL then maybe not.

Incipiently I was speaking to a recently arrived German friend of mine. I lent her a bike for her stay in exchange for a pint. I told her to go buy a government sponsored helmet from the vending machines or 7-eleven for $5. Unfortunately she didn't have a credit card and so was riding for a day or two without one.

The police did pull her up, because of her strong German accent and her sweet talking she didn't get a fine. But she did find it hilarious that she was lectured for ten minutes by the police how it is so very dangerous not to wear a helmet. And that she must wear a helmet for her own safety.

How much time do you think those policemen have likely spent on a bike compared to her who rode every day in Germany? It really is embarrassing. And maybe in Sydney you can get away without wearing a helmet but in Melbourne you can't. Police here do stop you and fine you.

Ross wrote:Yes I believe in MHL but, unlike you (and others in this thread) I am not trying to convert people to my way of thinking and asserting that my views are right and anybody that opposes it must be wrong.

To be fair, supporting MHL does involve asserting that your preference for helmet wearing at all times without exception is right and should be forced upon everyone by law.

lturner wrote:To be fair, supporting MHL does involve asserting that your preference for helmet wearing at all times without exception is right and should be forced upon everyone by law.

The alternative view is that MHLs are a cheap way of protecting the investment every taxpayer has in public health.

If a helmet is the difference between a thousand dollars of emergency room precautionary treatment, and a million dollars in surgery and rehab, it's mostly about forcing everyone to not cost me lots of money unnecessarily.

lturner wrote:To be fair, supporting MHL does involve asserting that your preference for helmet wearing at all times without exception is right and should be forced upon everyone by law.

The alternative view is that MHLs are a cheap way of protecting the investment every taxpayer has in public health.

If a helmet is the difference between a thousand dollars of emergency room precautionary treatment, and a million dollars in surgery and rehab, it's mostly about forcing everyone to not cost me lots of money unnecessarily.

Been said before, but if we follow that line to the terminal, there's lots of other activities that will qualify for PPE. How far are you prepared to comply?

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

lturner wrote:To be fair, supporting MHL does involve asserting that your preference for helmet wearing at all times without exception is right and should be forced upon everyone by law.

The alternative view is that MHLs are a cheap way of protecting the investment every taxpayer has in public health.

If a helmet is the difference between a thousand dollars of emergency room precautionary treatment, and a million dollars in surgery and rehab, it's mostly about forcing everyone to not cost me lots of money unnecessarily.

An even cheaper way would be banning all forms of motorised transport above 30kmh. Cars are involved in an ENORMOUSLY greater number of fatalities and injuries. They are also an environmental disaster. I don't care about green stuff much, just another nail in the auto coffin. Absolutely any argument for "public good" gets decimated because cars fail to tick the boxes. Ironically, the ONLY convincing argument I can muster up to support the MHL is because "car drivers are imbeciles who can't be trusted at any point in time".

It's OK to have an agenda. It's not OK to have a whinge when you get caught out pretending to be impartial when you are not.

lturner wrote:To be fair, supporting MHL does involve asserting that your preference for helmet wearing at all times without exception is right and should be forced upon everyone by law.

The alternative view is that MHLs are a cheap way of protecting the investment every taxpayer has in public health.

If a helmet is the difference between a thousand dollars of emergency room precautionary treatment, and a million dollars in surgery and rehab, it's mostly about forcing everyone to not cost me lots of money unnecessarily.

Where does this silly argument end? Do we mandate safety equipment for crossing the road (it's dangerous you know), how about mandatory DNA tests for anyone who wants to be a parent? Many very costly medical conditions, like risk of cardio-vascular disease, are closely related to genetic disposition.